Talking things through: why good reasons count (27.01.2026)

I was reading the philosopher, Aaron Simmons on Substack the other day.His piece was entitled, ‘What if they no longer care about reasons?’  In a world where public debate is increasingly dominated by noise rather than reason, I thought I’d share it with you

In a world of rising authoritarianism, his concern is how we, as citizens, conduct ourselves in the public sphere. We all know about the ‘unreasonable’ citizen who isn’t interested in providing reasons for what they believe and how they act. They just ‘shout’ as loud as they can.

People like this get in the way of our collective democratic flourishing, and we need to find a way to deal them. After all, our society works best when we all participate in the giving and taking of reasons.  If I don’t like something or disagree with something, then I have a duty to explain to others why I feel this way.

It isn’t easy, of course. Our reasons (some of them will be beliefs that we hold) might work within our circle of fellow-believers. As a liberal Christian, I have certain ways of understanding Jesus’ ministry that clash with those of my conservative brethren and yet resonate with my liberal atheist friends. For example, I reject the Christian nationalism of people such as Vance, and I don’t see the hand of the Devil behind much of what is happening in the world (I don’t believe the Devil exists).

Given this, if I am required to give reasons for my claims, then so are those conversing with me, whether face-face or via social media. And we are both required to offer reasons that the other can recognise. There’s little point blasting biblical quotes at someone who isn't a Christian.

Of course, this is assuming (perhaps without justification) that the person I’m conversing with is reasonable and has a moral sense of how to treat others. But what if they don’t? What if they flat-out refuses to share in reason-giving dialogue?

This is the issue we face today. Much of our social discourse is a blast of unsubstantiated opinions. Social media is full of people who no longer care about reasons, who won’t listen to ‘the other side’ andwho see obstinate belief as more valuable than critical reflection. Many of these people think loyalty to a ‘leader’ as more important than loyalty to the truth (or the attempt to seek the truth).

It seems we’ve entered an age when power is all that matters, that winning is the sole objective of many conversations. You can give someone the evidence against their claims, and they respond with ‘I don’t care’. Such an attitude is tragic in our social lives, but it is dangerous in Government when decisions need to be made for the good of all

It is possible, of course, that some people haven’t been trained in how to discuss things in a reasonable way, through social deliberation. They might have suffered trauma or have learnt to distrust others, or they might not have been educated into it. But there are a lot who know how to do this and choose not to. I can forgive those who are ignorant, but I struggle to excuse anyone who disregards the truth for partisan reasons. They have, in my mind, broken a moral code.

What we do about this, is the question. Aaron Simmons considers different options, and offers two which I think are both possible and workable.

The first is to get involved in the local community and keep politics out of our social life. In this way, we re-engage and see the humanity in each other. Playing sports, being a member of a book club, singing in a choir – these connect us through shared activity.  They root us in what is important.

Naturally, this doesn’t really solve the problem. We still have to engage in the political sphere and I’m not sure we can – or should – remain forever silent in the face of someone whose political ideas we find repugnant (and for good reason).

The second is to reject what is happening and do all we can to invite each other into a ‘reasoned dialogue’. This requires us to participate in social discourse and to demand that others give reasons for their beliefs and claims even if they refuse to do so. It might work with some people and fail with others; we might have to walk away when the ‘shouting’ gets too loud, but at least we have tried.

As Aaron Simmons writes, “Remember, being reasonable doesn’t mean agreeing with you! But being unreasonable does mean refusing to think together about what is worthy of our agreement.”

If we want to preserve the health of our democracy, then each of us must commit to seeking understanding, even when it’s difficult.